caicgsablog: June 2016

14	Annexure A10- A true copy of the judgment dated 15/7/2015 in OA 3335 OF 2011 by the Honourable CAT, Principal Bench.
15	Annexure A11- A true copy of the order dated 19/2/2013 in OA 164/2009
16	Annexure A12- A true copy of the order dated 5/6/2012 in OA 658/2010 of the CAT, Madras Bench
17	Annexure A13- A true copy of the order dated 21^st October 2011 in OA 314/2010 of the Honourable CAT Ernakulum Bench
18	Annexure A14- A true copy of the communication No . File No. V.IV/681/1/08-Pt dated 11/5/2012 issued by the Ministry of External affairs.
19	Annexure A15- A true copy of the Order dated 6/4/2016 is OA 708 of 2013
20	Annexure A16- A true copy of the judgments dated 14/10/2014 in WP (C ) 4606/13 of the Delhi High Court

Dated this the 19^th day of June 2016

V. Sajith Kumar

Counsel for the Applicant

For the use in the Tribunal Office :

Date of Filing :

Date of Receipt by Post :

Registration No. Signature of the Registrar

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH

O.A. No: ___________________/2016

Confederation of All India Central Govt, Stenographers Associations and Others		Applicants
	V
Union of India and others		Respondents

SYNOPSIS

The Applicants working as stenographers in the Sub-Ordinate offices are aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents for refusing to consider the claims for retention of historical party in pay with that of Stenographers of Central Secretariat Service. The applicants, the stenographers in the subordinate offices, and stenographers of Central Secretariat service were enjoying historical parity in pay in various grades. This was recognized by the reports of the 5^th and 6^th Pay Commissions as well as 1986 Award. Inspite of the same, the applicants were denied parity in pay without justifiable reasons. Actions on the part of the respondent are unjust and unfair.

.LIST OF DATES

Date	Events
18/8/1989	Historical award granting parity in pay to stenographers of Sub-Ordinate offices
30/09/1997	Ministry of Finance accepted recommendations of 5^th pay commission bringing parity in pay
25/09/2006	Order granting upgradation of pay for stenographers in CSSS
16/7/2011	The relevant pages of the Notification published by the Staff Selection Commission
23/4/2012	Representation by all India Stenographers association.
6/4/2016	Disposal of OA 708/2013

Dated this the 19^th day of June 2016

V. Sajith Kumar

Counsel for the Applicants.

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH

O.A. No: ___________________/2016

Applicants:-

1. Confederation of All India Central Govt, Stenographers Associations, represented by the its General Secretary, Harisuthan, S/o G. Madhavan Unnithan, aged 45 years, Steno Grade D, Stenographer O/o the Sr. Superintendent of Post, Kollam – 691001 residing at Nadukunnil, Kizhakkethil, Navaneetham, Kadika, Kaithaparambu P. O, Enathu, Pathanamthitta- 691526.

2. M. Harisuthan, S/o G. Madhavan Unnithan, aged 45 years, Steno Grade D, Stenographer O/o the Sr. Superintendent of Post, Kollam – 691001, residing at Nadukunnil, Kizhakkethil, Navaneetham, Kadika, Kaithaparambu P. O, Enathu, Pathanamthitta- 691526.

3. P.S. Anirudhan, S/o P. Sreedharan, aged 51 years, Stenographer Grade ‘D’, O/o The Principal Accountant General (SGSA). Audit Bhavan, AG’s Office P. O, Statue, M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram- 695001, residing at Goutham Vihar, Punukkannur, Perumpuzha P. O, Kollam- 691504

4. Liji S. R, D/o V. Raghunathan, aged 42 years, Stenographer Grade “D”/ GR.III, O/o The Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, ICE Bhavan, Press Club Road, Trivandrum- 695001, residing at Ketharam, TC 43/666(2), NKRA- 50, Neelattinkara, Kamaleswaram, Manacaud (PO), Trivandrum- 695009.

5. K.P. Sreenivasan, S/o Late V.K. Parameswaran, aged 49 years, Stenographer Grade “D”/ GR.III, O/o The Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals), Aayakar Bhavan, Mananchira, Kozhikode- 673001, residing at Sreenidhi, Near Pisharikav Temple, Edakkad, PO West Hill, Kozhikode- 673005.

6. G. Ramadas, S/o N. Gopalachary, aged 56 years, Steno Grade D, Stenographer State, O/o The National Commission For SCs, Min. of Social Justice & Empowerment, Government of India TC 24/547(1) Opp. Thycaud HPO, Thycaud, Trivandrum- 695014, residing at Guru Priya, ENRA 20, TC 36/663, Enjackal, Vallakkadavu P. O, Trivandrum- 695008.

7. M.P.Sivakumar, S/o.C.P.Sethukumar, aged 46 years, Stenographer Grade-1, Regional Passport office, Panampillly Nagar, Cochin-36 residing at Nandanam, Nr. Yashoram Flats, Nirappathu, Chottanikkara.p.o, Eranakulam.

Respondents:-

1. Union of India, represented by Secretary to the Government, Department of Personnel and Training , Ministry of Personnel and Training, Government of India, New Delhi.110001

2. Secretary to Government, Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi- 110001.

ADDRESS FOR SERVICE

All process and other notices to the applicant may be served on his counsel V. Sajith Kumar Advocate, Pranavam Chambers, M-.M Road, Cochin-14 and those to the respondents may be served on their addresses shown above.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

1. PARTICULARS OF THE ORDER AGAINST WHICH THE APPLICATION IS FILED.

Nil

2. JURISDICTION OF THE TRIBUNAL

The applicants declare that the subject matter of the application is within the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal.

3. LIMITATION.

The applicants further declare that the application is within the limitation period prescribed under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

4. FACTS OF THE CASE.

1. The applicants working as Stenographers with Sub-ordinate/field offices under various Central government offices are aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in considering their claim of pay parity with their counterparties in Central Secretariat stenographers Service (CSSS) w.e.f. 1/1/2006.

2. The recruitments to the Stenographers of the Central Secretariat and Attached offices as well as Non Secretariat; Sub-ordinate/Field offices are mostly made through Staff Selection Commission (SSC). The Staff Selection Commission conducts examination for selection to the posts of stenographers towards Central Secretariat Service (CSSS) and to the field offices of the Central Government. The Stenographers to the Central Secretariat Service and the field office are required to have the same educational qualification and to fulfill the same recruitment criteria.

3. The common notification gives an option to seek preference to work either at Central Secretariat stenographer Service or else at subordinate offices under Government of India. The appointments are made from a common rank list based purely on the merit cum option submitted by the candidate.

4. It is submitted that there were historical pay parity between Stenographers of Central Secretariat Service and field offices. The opportunity for promotion in the Central Secretariat stenographers’ Service is much brighter than field offices. The entry grade of Steno Grade D is attached with Grade pay of Rs. 2400/- in field offices and Secretariat Service alike. On completion of 5 years a Stenographers Grade D in the Secretariat Service are given Grade pay of Rs. 4200/- on the same post. However, the Stenographers in the field offices are totally ignored and remain to draw the initial Grade Pay only. The Stenographers at Central Secretariat Service will reach the post of Sr. Private Secretary/principal staff officer with grade pay of 7600/- or more. However, the Stenographers at field officers have to be satisfied with the post of Sr. Private Secretary with grade pay of 4800/-.

5. The applicant’s grievance is not on the chance of promotion but the gross discrimination in granting Grade Pay in the similar grades. There was parity all through out. The attempt to discriminate between stenographers of field offices and Central Secretariat Service had resulted in various litigations, ultimately ruling in favour of Stenographers in field offices. The dispute as regards pay parity between stenographers of CSSS and filed offices was once referred to arbitration ruling in favour of persons like applicant. The scale of pay of similarly placed stenographers in CSSS was granted to the stenographers of the Sub-Ordinate offices w.e.f 1/1/1986. A true copy of the arbitration award dated 18/8/1989 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure A1.

6. It is submitted that the applicants were getting pay parity from 1986 onwards. Though request of time bound upgradation as in CSSS was not acceded with, pay parity with corresponding cadre in CSSS was totally approved. Since then, there was parity between CSSS and that of Stenographers of field offices. The Annexure A1 award was implemented by the respondents with effect from 1/1/1986. A true copy of the OM.No. 7(18)-E 111/81 dated 4/5/1990 issued by the 1^st respondent is produced here with and marked as Annexure A2.

7. It is submitted that 5^th Pay Commission had removed certain anomalies and disparity which existed in between Private Secretaries in the Subordinate Office with Pay Scale of Rs.2000-3200 and the Private Secretary at Secretariat service with pay scale of Rs. 2000- 3500 and both scales were merged and a common scale for both cadres with scales of pay of Rs. 6500 – 10500 was recommended and got accepted by Government of India, Ministry of Finance and implemented the same by notification vide GSR/569/(E) dated 30/09/1997. Similarly the pre-revised scale of Rs. 1640 – 2900 drawn by Stenographer’s Grade I of the Sub-ordinate service and Grade C of Secretariat Service were respectively revised to Rs. 5500 – 9000. Thus the 5^th Pay Commission taken note of early litigations, award of 1989 etc and fully appreciated the parity between Subordinate Offices and CSSS.

8. The pay parity was in force after the implementation of the 5^th pay commission. The disparity was surfaced when an upgradation of pay was granted to the Stenographers Group C by the government behind the back of 6^th pay commission as per order dated 25/09/2006. The order failed to take care of pre existing facts of equal pay between stenographers in CSSS and filed offices. As per the said order pay of stenographers Grade C was upgraded from Rs. 5500 – 9000 to Rs. 6500 – 10500. A true copy of the order No. 25/9/2006 issued on0 behalf of the 1^st respondent is produced here with and marked as Annexure A3 .

9. Similarly the Private Secretaries in CSSS with pay scale of Rs. 6500 – 10500 were given upgradation to the Pay scale of Rs. 8000 – 13500 by order dated dated 24/6/2005. All those who completed 4 years were given such a financial upgradation. A true copy of the order No F.No. 10/3/2004-CS.II(Pt.I) dated 24/6/2005 issued on behalf of the 1^st respondent is produced here with and marked as Annexure A4.

10. It is submitted that in consequence of Annexure A3 and Annexure A4 the personal Assistant of Central Secretariat Service with pre-revised scale of Rs. 6500- 10500 has been granted grade pay of 4600/- in the pay band PB-2. It was even given effect from01/01/2006. A true copy of the Order No. F.No.1/1/2008-IC dated 16/11/2009 issued on behalf of the 2^nd Respondent is produced here with and marked as Annexure A4(a)

11. It is submitted that by an order dated 22/06/2011 the Stenographers in the entry cadre were given a non functional selection grade. This was implemented without recommendation of any expert body like pay commission. A true copy of the Order No.20/49/2009-CS.II(B) dated 22/06/2011 issued on behalf of the 1^ST Respondent is produced here with and marked as Annexure A4(b)

12. However there was no corresponding up gradation with respect to the Private Secretaries and Stenographers of Subordinate Service. This has created an anomalous situation between the similarly placed employees. The revision of corresponding pay scales put the Stenographers of CSSS in a higher pay scales bringing disparity. Such enhancements were granted simultaneous with constitution of 6^th pay commission. The 6^th Pay commission also recognized in principle the pay parity between stenographers of CSSS and filed offices. The 6^th pay commission had recommended parity between the two groups by bringing appropriate upgradation to the Stenographers of field offices. The request made by the Association of the applicants was virtually accepted by the 6^th pay commission. However, the same was not reflected in the pay revisions orders. A true copy of the relevant pages of the 6^th pay commission report is produced here with and marked as Annexure A5.

13. However the up gradation given unilaterally to the section of employees just before the constitution of the 6^th pay commission not taken care of while implementing the recommendations of the 6^th pay commission. Similarly, the merger of various grades in the Sub-ordinate offices also worked to their disadvantage. The anomaly after the implementation of 6^th pay Commission Report can be demonstrated as per the table below.

Existing Pay structure/ Grade Pays in the CSSS/ Attached Offices & Field/Subordinate Office

1. STENOGRAPHERS OF THE CENTRAL SECRETARIAT & ATTACHED OFFICES			2. STENOGRAPHERS-NON-SECRETARIAT: SUBORDINATE/ FIELD OFFICES
Entry level	Steno.Gr. D	Rs.2400/-	Steno Gr. D/III	Rs. 2400/-
Upgradation in the same post as Steno. Gr. D after 5 years of service (automatic)	Steno.Gr. D	Rs.4200/-	Although the Steno. Gr. III post is now upgraded to Steno. Gr. II (new), no upgraded grade pay is given.	Rs. 2400/-
Next promotion	Steno.Gr.II/C	Rs.4600/-	Grade-II&I (Erstwhile posts) (2 promotions received in the old pattern are merged)	Rs. 4200/-
Next promotion	PS	Rs.4800/-	PS	Rs. 4600/-
Next promotion	Automatic upgradation to Rs. 5400/- after 4 years	Rs.5400/-	No such upgradation
No such post exist in CSSS			Sr. PS (only one post exist in few departments)	Rs. 4800/-
			Automatic upgradaion to Rs. 5400/-after 4 years	Rs. 5400/-
Next Upgradation	PPS	Rs.6600/-	No such post exists in subordinate offices
Next promotion	Sr. PPS	Rs.7600/-	No such post exists in subordinate officers

14. It is submitted that the confederation of All India Central Govt. Stenographers Association was heard by the 5^th pay Commission resulting in absolute parity in between both streams of stenographers. They were given advance notice by the Commission and all the materials were presented before the commission. Similarly the grievances were brought to the notice of the 6^th pay commission also. A true copy of the note submitted before the 6^th Central pay Commission is produced herewith and marked as Annexure A6.

15. Meanwhile, various departments had sought suggestions from the employees for resolving their grievances. In response to the letter issued by the Income Tax department a comprehensive request was submitted before the cadre review committee. A true copy of the submission dated 2/2/2009 submitted by the applicant before the, Member Secretary, Cadre Review Committee is produced here with and marked as Annexure A7.

16. The Association of the applicants had sought restructuring of stenographer’s service in the same pattern as in CSSS. They also sought similar scale of pay. The pay commission had recommended parity in pay though not specific on restructuring in par with CSSS. It is submitted that equal pay for equal work is a well recognized principle. The parity of pay between the Stenographers of subordinate service and CCSS is recognized by all Pay Commission Reports. There is no justification in denying pay parity to the applicants. The Association was taking up the matter regularly with the respondents. A true copy of the representation dated 23/4/2012 submitted by the Confederation of All India Central Govt. Stenographers Association is produced here with and marked as Annexure A8.

17. The applicants had personally represented the matter before the competent authorities. They had sought parity in pay with their counter parts in CSSS. They reminded authorities about the historical parity in pay being enjoyed by them for decades together. A true copy of the representation dated 24/9/2012 submitted by the 1^st applicant is produced here with and marked as Annexure A9.

18. All the applicants and other stenographers in service had submitted similar representations to the respondents. The stenographers in the Sub-Ordinate offices constitute a separate cadre outside their parent department. It is submitted that the Applicants have taken up the grievances before the competent authorities several times. The Applicants were promised amicable settlement in lieu of Pay Commission recommendation and Arbitration Award. However, the matter is yet to be settled. Actions on the part of the respondents are unjust and unfair.

19. The Stenographers of various Sub-Ordinate offices had approached various Central Administrative Tribunals and the directions were given to extend pay parity. The request for pay parity by the Stenographers of AIIMS was allowed by the Honourable CAT, Principal Bench in OA 3052/2009 by order dated 19/2/2010. The direction to re-examine matter was examined and rejected leading another OA 3335 OF 2011. The same was allowed on merits with specific directions. A true copy of the judgment dated 15/7/2015 in OA 3335 OF 2011 by the Honourable CAT, Principal Bench is produced herewith and marked as Annexure A10.

20. Similarly the prayers of the stenographers of the CAT was raised in OA 164/2009 before the principal Bench It was held that decision of the government to deny grade pay of Rs. 4800 in PB-2 AND Grade Pay of Rs, 5400 in PB-3 etc as arbitrary. A true copy of the order dated 19/2/2009 in OA 164/2009 is produced here with and marked as Annexure A11.

21. The Stenographers of Railway had approached the Honourable CAT Madras Bench seeking extension of Benefits in OA 164/2009. There was a direction to consider and pass a speaking order on the claim made by the applicants. However on rejection of Claim, the order was challenged in OA658/2010 and it was allowed by order dated 5/6/2012. A true copy of the order dated 5/6/2012 in OA 658/2010 of the CAT, Madras Bench is produced here with and marked as Annexure A12.

22. This Honorable CAT also considered similar matter in OA 314/2010 and allowed the same directing parity in pay. A true copy of the order dated 21^st October 2011 in OA 314/2010 of the Honourable CAT Ernakulum Bench is produced here with and marked Annexure A13.

23. The 1^st applicant is a confederation of associations of stenographers in various departments. The General secretary was authroised by the executive committee to move the grievances before the Honourable CAT. The confederation is before this Tribunal representing stenographers of various Grades in the Sub-Ordinate offices of the Central Government. The 2^nd applicant is working as a stenographer in department of post with Grade pay 4200/- . He is actually entitled to grade pay of Rs. 4600/- in case of pay parity. The 3^rd applicant is working as stenographer Grade-1 at the O/o. Principal AG with Grade pay of Rs. 4200. He is also entitled to Grade pay of Rs. 4600/-. The 4^th applicant is working as Private Secretary with GP Rs. 4600 in Group B cadre in the revenue department. She is entitled for GP of Rs. 4800/- in parity with CSSS. The 5^th applicant is working as Private Secretary with GP Rs. 4600 in Group B cadre in the revenue/finance ministry. He is entitled for GP of Rs. 4800/- in parity with CSSS. The 6^th applicant is working as stenographer in Grade–D with GP OF Rs. 4600. He is actually entitled to GP of Rs. 4800. The 7^th applicant is having grade pay of pay of Rs. 4200, while his counterparts in CSSS is getting a Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/-. The 7^th applicant and few others had earlier filed OA 501/2008 seeking parity in pay with Superintendent Cadre (Group B) in the same department. He is in Group B and but not getting benefits of Group B or Group C. No decisions is coming up inspite of the directions of the Honourable Tribunal. A true copy of the communication No . File No. V.IV/681/1/08-Pt dated 11/5/2012 issued by the Ministry of External affairs is produced here with and marked as Annexure A14.

24. In Annexure A14, it is informed that revision of grade pay is a policy issue having implication for all similarly placed officials in various filed offices in different departments of the Government of India. The decisions are deferred on that ground. Individual departments are thus not competent to take a decision on the matter.

25. The confederation is before this Honourable Tribunal, because stenographers are scattered in various sub-ordinate departments. The Confederation was invited by the 6^th pay commission and was heard for about one hour. Thus confederation is having de-facto recognition from the governmental organizations. The Confederation includes Association of stenographers in department like Postal, Income Tax, Central excise, Prasar Bharathi, Accountant General, Rialways, Passport office etc. The parent department doesn’t have any role than implementing the decisions of 1^st and 2^nd respondent. Stenographers are considered as a separate cadre in the Sub-Ordinate offices. The representations to the parent departments will always remain unconsidered because; the decision has to come from 1^st and 2^nd respondent jointly in respect of stenographers of various sub-ordinate departments. There are various recognized and unrecognized associations under the confederation. The association of postal stenographers is a recognized association under the confederation.

26. It is submitted that the Applicant had earlier moved this Honourabale Tribunal in OA 709/2013 which was closed giving liberty to parties to move afresh pointing out certain contentions which were omitted by all parties concerned. A true copy of the Order dated 6/4/2016 is OA 708 of 2013 is produced here with and marked as Annexure A15.

27. It is submitted that as observed in OA, the department of Personnel has also been impleaded and all possible legal contentions has been incorporated in the grounds of relief. As regards the observations in para, 8, 9 and 11 of the judgment of the apex court, it is humbly submitted that 5^th pay commission implemented parity in pay for stenographers of Central Secretariat and sub-Ordinate services. There are equivalent recommendations in 6^th pay commission also. However, an upgradation to Central Secretariat stenographers without the notice of the Pay commission resulted in the present anomaly.

28. In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court relied on historical parity and allowed the prayer for parity with CSSS. A true copy of the judgments dated 14/10/2014 in WP (C ) 4606/13 of the Delhi High Court is produced here with and marked as Annexure A16.

29. It is submitted that the applicants alone are discriminated. Inspite of CAT directions on pay parity in respect to various Sub-Ordinate offices, benefits were restricted to the applicants herein. The claims are based on historical parity. The upgradations given to Stenographers of Central Secretariat Service are not based on pay commission recommendations. The denial of similar consideration to the Applicants are highly unjust and arbitrary.

5.GROUNDS FOR RELIFE

A. The Applicants working as stenographers in the Sub-Ordinate offices are aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents for refusing to consider the claims for retention of historical party in pay with that of Stenographers of Central Secretariat Service. The applicants, the stenographers in the subordinate offices, and stenographers of Central Secretariat service were enjoying historical parity in pay in various grades. This was recognized by the reports of the 5^th and 6^th Pay Commissions as well as 1986 Award. Inspite of the same, the applicants were denied parity in pay without justifiable reasons. Actions on the part of the respondent are unjust and unfair.

B. Equal pay for equal work, is an abstract doctrine in consonance with principle of equality enshrined under article 14 of Constitution of India. A hostile discrimination, and which is illogical, irrational and illegal and in a case where there is no intelligible differentia which has a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved will not pass the test of reasonableness. Similarly placed incumbents can not be discriminated in the matter of pay scale as held in Noida Enterprises Association V/s Noida Authority, 2009(1) SCC(L & S) 672. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Principle Bench of the CAT in OA 164/2009 by its order dated 19/2/2009.

C. The applicants and the Stenographers of Central Secretariat were recruited through the same selection procedures by the Staff Selection Commission or as authorized by them. They, having passed the same examination based on same eligibility condition and doing same nature of work, are entitled to be treated equally. In this case Pay Commission recommended parity of pay. Therefore, denial of pay scale on flimsy, arbitrary and irrelevant grounds not only violates directive principles of the State Policy but it will be also be malafide and violative of Article 14 to Article 16 of the Constitution of India.

D. The tables produced in the statement above substantiate the historical parity enjoyed by the Stenographers of the subordinate offices and the Secretariat Service. The word ‘historical’ has been defined by the Concise Oxford Dictionary 10^th edition as “belonging to or set in the past.” The historical parity would be when it is established as an obligation to one who is claiming parity of pay scales with class or category had been situated in past at par in the equivalent pay scale with counterparts with whom such parity is claimed. The above fact is clearly established in the table provided and it is highly necessary that historical parity in pay is restored and applicants are granted with benefit following of the same. Actions on the part of the respondents are highly unjust and discriminatory.

E. The pay commission had recommended parity in pay. The government cannot reject the recommendations without sufficient reasons. The pay commission report though not binding had to be accepted and implemented in accordance with law. As held in State of Punjab Vs. Amar Goyal 2005 SCC(L&S) 910, once pay commission recommendations are accepted, the benefit of pay commission on the doctrine of equal pay for equal work cannot be denied to the categories covered under the recommendations.

F. The principle of parity recommended by the VIth CPC has been accepted by the Government as on earlier occasion wide award of arbitration 1986. However, it is neither carried forward nor sustained in subsequent revision of pay scale of the respective cadres. This again and again proves to be highly vexaction to the applicants of the subordinate service, though no fault of their own. They are entitled to the benefit for parity with effect from 1.1.2006, the date of implementation of the VI^th CPC Report at par with CSSS. The grievance is in relation to pay parity and there is recurring cause of action. Actions on the part of the respondents are highly unfair and discriminatory.

G. In Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India (1982 AIR 879), the Petitioner a driver constable in Delhi Police sought parity in pay with that of drivers of Delhi Administration or to that of RPF. The scale of pay of the driver constable at relevant time was Rs. 210-270 for non matriculates and Rs.225-308 for matriculates. The scale of pay of RPF drivers were Rs. 260-400. Similar was the pay in secretariat and non-secretariat drivers in Delhi. The Petitioner was seeking parity in pay with drivers of other Departments of Government. The Hon’ble Supreme Court relying on the doctrine of equal pay for equal work directed the establishment to grant them atleast the pay applicable to the drivers in RPF. The only objection raised by the establishment is that the drivers of police force and other driver belonging to different Departments. Therefore principle of equal pay for equal work is not applicable. The above contention was held irrational by Hon’ble Supreme Court by allowing the prayer. In Bhagwan Dass Vs. State of Haryana (1987 AIR 2049) The Petitioners had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of constitution seeking regularization and parity in pay. There were two schemes for adult education in state of Haryana. One sponsored by State Government and another by Central Government. The Petitioners were working under the project of the State Government though performing same duties and responsibility of Central sponsored scheme. They were paid only fixed allowance/honorarium. The Hon’ble Supreme Court rejected the stand of the State Government that equal pay for equal work would not be applicable since Recruitment of Petitioners is different from the mode of Recruitment of Respondents. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while holding so in Para 6 observed that “Be that as it may, so long as the Petitioners are doing work which is similar to the work performed by Respondents 2 to 6 from the standpoint of ‘equal work for equal pay’ doctrine, the Petitioners cannot be discriminated against in regard to pay scales. Whether equal work is put in by a candidate selected by a process where the candidates from all parts of the country could have competed or whether they are selected by a, process where candidates from only a cluster of a few villages could have completed (competed) is altogether irrelevant and immaterial, for the purposes of the applicability of ‘equal work for equal pay’ doctrine. A typist doing similar work as another typist cannot be denied equal pay on the ground that the process of selection was different in as much as ultimately the work done is similar and there is no rational ground to refuse equal pay for equal work. It is quite possible that if he had to compete with candidates from all over the country, he might or might not have been selected. It would be easier for him to be selected when the selection is limited to a cluster of a few villages. That however is altogether a different matter. It is possible that he might not have been selected at all if he had to compete against candidates from all over the country. But once he is selected, whether he is selected by one process or the other, he cannot be denied equal pay for equal work without violating the said doctrine. This plea raised by the Respondent-State must also fail”. Having regard to these facts and circumstances we do not think that the Respondent-State can be accused of making appointments on a temporary six months basis with any ulterior or oblique motive. In our opinion, therefore, the prayer of the Petitioners to absorb them as regular employees on a permanent basis from the date of their initial appointment has no justification. That however does not mean that the Petitioners should be deprived of the legitimate benefits of being fixed in a pay-scale corresponding to the one applicable to Respondents 2 to 6 by treating them as employees who have continued from the date of initial appointment by disregarding the breaks which have been given on account of the peculiar nature of the Scheme. While, therefore, the Petitioners cannot claim as a matter of right to be absorbed as permanent and regular employees from the inception, they would be justified in claiming pay on the basis of the length of service computed from the date of their appointment depending on the length of service by disregarding the breaks which have been given for a limited purpose. Based on the observation the Petitioners were granted parity in pay including arrears of pay.

H. Jaipal, Niaz Mohammed and others Vs State of Haryana (1988 AIR (SC) 1504) The claim for parity in pay was disputed by Government by contenting the mode of selection between parties is absolutely different. Above contention was rejected by Hon’ble Supreme Court by holding that the difference in mode of selection will not affect the application of the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” if both the classes of persons perform similar functions and duties under the same employer. Similar plea raised by the State of Haryana in opposing the case of supervisors in the case of Bhagwan Dass (supra) was rejected, where it was observed that if the State deliberately chose to limit the selection of candidates from a cluster of a few villages it will not absolve chose to limit the selection of candidates in a discriminatory manner to the disadvantage of the selectees once they are appointed provided the work done by the candidates so selected is similar in nature. The Recruitment was confined to the locality as it was considered advantageous to make recruitment from the cluster of villages for the purposes of implementing the Adult Education Scheme because the instructors appointed from that area would know the people of that area more intimately and would be in a better position to persuade them to take advantage of the Adult Education Scheme in order to make it a success.

I. OA 164/2009 Principle Bench New Delhi The Stenographers working with Central Administrative Tribunal sought parity in pay with that of Stenographers in Central Secretariat service. The Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal after going through the gamut of precedents in the point allowed the prayer of parity in pay. In Coal India Limited Vs. Saroj Kumar Mishra, 2007 SCC(9) 625- Only because, there is a possibility of floodgate of litigation, a valuable right of a citizen cannot be permitted to be taken away. The above decision was relied on to adjudicate on the rights of the stenographer so CAT. The Court is bound to decide the respective rights of the parties. Therefore rejection of claims on technical grounds are also unsustainable.

J. In this particular case, there was historical parity between stenographers of CSS and CSSS. Honourable CAT have extended parity in pay to various subordinate departments and got it implemented. Therefore, the prayer for parity may kindly be allowed.

6. DETAILS OF REMEDIES EXHAUSTED.No other statutory remedy.

7. MATTERS NOT PREVIOUSLY FILED OR PENDING BEFORE ANY OTHER COURT.

The applicants further declare that the applicant has not filed any application, writ petition or suit, regarding the matter in respect of which the application is made, before any court or any other authority or any other bench of this Tribunal nor any such application writ petition or suit is pending before any of he courts.

8. RELIEF (S) SOUGHT

In view of the facts mentioned above the applicant prays for the following relief(s):

(i) To declare that applicants working as stenographers in various grades under Sub-Ordinate stenographers Secretariat Service with various department under the central government is entitled to pay parity with their counter parts in Central Secretariat Stenographers Service being enjoyed decades together.

(ii) To direct the Respondents to extend the benefits ordered in Annexure A3 and Annexure A4 series to the Applicants and to bring parity in pay to the applicants working as stenographers in various grades under Sub-Ordinate stenographers Secretariat Service with their counter parts in Central Secretariat Stenographers Service with effect from 1/1/2006 with all consequential benefits.

(iii) To direct the respondents to grant non functional selection grade (NFSG) of Rs. 4200/- to Stenographer (Gr.II) [earstwhile Stenographer (Gr.III)] of subordinate offices with effect from 22/06/2011 with consequential benefits, on par with their counterparts of CSSS as ordered in Annexure A4(b).

(iv) To direct the Respondents to grant upgraded pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500 to Stenographers grade I and the grade pay of Rs. 4600 in the revised scale with effect from 01/01/2006 on par with CSSS as ordered in Annexure A3.

(v) To direct the Respondents to grant nonfunctional pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500 with effect from 03/10/2003 to private Secretary of Subordinate Offices and grade pay of Rs. 4800/- in PB-2 with effect from 01/01/2006 and the consequential benefits in terms of Annexure A4.

(vi) Grant such other reliefs as may be prayed for and as the Court may deem fit to grant, and

(vii) Grant the cost of this Original Application.

9. INTERIM ORDER IF ANY PRAYED FOR :

Pending the final decision of the application the applicant seeks issue of the following order:- To direct the respondents to provisionally fix the pay of the applicants in parity with that of stenographers in CSSS.

10. NOT APPLICABLE

11. PARTICULARS OF THE POSTAL ORDER IN RESPECT OF APPLICATION FEE

1. No. of the Indian Postal Order :

2.Date of issue of the Postal Order :

3. Name of issuing Post Office : Kaloor Post office, E.K.M.

4. Post Office at which payable : H.P.O.,Ernakulam.

12. LIST OF ENCLOSURES

1. Annexure A1 – A16

2.Vakkalath

3.Envelops with Acknowledgement Cards

4. Postal Order for Rs. 50/-

IN VERIFICATION

We, (1) M. Harisuthan, General Secretary, Confederation of All India Central Govt, Stenographers Associations, S/o G. Madhavan Unnithan, aged 45 years, Steno Grade D, Stenographer O/o the Sr. Superintendent of Post, Kollam – 691001, residing at Nadukunnil, Kizhakkethil, Navaneetham, Kadika, Kaithaparambu P. O, Enathu, Pathanamthitta- 691526. (2) ) M. Harisuthan, S/o G. Madhavan Unnithan, aged 45 years, Steno Grade D, Stenographer O/o the Sr. Superintendent of Post, Kollam – 691001, residing at Nadukunnil, Kizhakkethil, Navaneetham, Kadika, Kaithaparambu P. O, Enathu, Pathanamthitta- 691526(3) P.S. Anirudhan, S/o P. Sreedharan, aged 51 years, Stenographer Grade ‘D’, O/o The Principal Accountant General (SGSA). Audit Bhavan, AG’s Office P. O, Statue, M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram- 695001, residing at Goutham Vihar, Punukkannur, Perumpuzha P. O, Kollam- 691504. (4) Liji S. R, D/o V. Raghunathan, aged 42 years, Stenographer Grad “D”/ GR.III, O/o The Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, ICE Bhavan, Press Club Road, Trivandrum- 695001, residing at Ketharam, TC 43/666(2), NKRA- 50, Neelattinkara, Kamaleswaram, Manacaud (PO), Trivandrum- 695009. (5) K.P. Sreenivasan, S/o Late V.K. Parameswaran, aged 49 years, Stenographer Grad “D”/ GR.III, O/o The Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals), Aayakar Bhavan, Mananchira, Kozhikode- 673001, residing at sreenidhi, Near Pisharikav Temple, Edakkad, PO West Hill, Kozhikode- 673005. (6) G. Ramadas, S/o N. Gopalachar, aged 56 years, Steno Grade D, Stenographer State, O/o The National Commission For SCs, Min. of Social Justice & Empowerment, Government of India TC 24/547(1) Opp. Thycaud HPO, Thycaud, Trivandrum- 695014, residing at Guru Priya, ENRA 20, TC 36/663, Enjackal, Vallakkadavu P. O, Trivandrum- 695008., (7) M.P.Sivakumar, S/o.C.P.Sethukumar, aged 46 years, Stenographer Grade-1, Regional Passport office, Panampillly Nagar, Cochin-36 residing at Nandanam, Nr. Yashoram Flats, Nirappathu, Chottanikkara.p.o, Eranakulam, do hereby verify that the contents of para 1 to 12 above are true to be best of our knowledge, information and belief that I have not suppressed any material facts.

Dated this the 19^TH day of June 2016

Place: Ernakulam

Date: 19/06/2013 Applicants

2. M. Harisuthan

3. P.S. Anirudhan

4. Liji.S.R

5.K.P.Sreenivasan

6.G.Ramadas

7. M.P.Sivakumar

V.SAJITHKUMAR

Counsel for the applicant

EFORE THE HONOURABLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUBAL

ERNAKULAM BENCH

M. A. No: /2016

O. A. NO: /2016

Applicants:-

Respondents:-

1. Union of India, represented by Secretary to the Government, Department of Personnel and Training , Ministry of Personnel and Training, Government of India, New Delhi.110001

2. Secretary to Government, Department of Expenditure , Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi- 110001.

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FOR JOINT TOGETHER FILED UNDER 4(5), a&b of the CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PROCEDURE RULES

Brief facts of the case:-

The original application has been filed to direct the respondents to give parity in pay to the applicants working as stenographers in various grades under Sub-Ordinate stenographers Secretariat Service with their counter parts in Central Secretariat Stenographers Service w.e.f 1/1/2006 with all consequential benefits. All the stenographers under the sub-ordinate offices of the central government form a common cadre. The confederation is before this Tribunal representing stenographers of various Grades in Sub-Ordinate offices of the Central Government. In view of the facts and for the reasons stated above, the Miscellaneous Applicants most humbly prays that this Honourable Tribunal may be pleased to permit the applicants to join together in the original application, otherwise serious prejudice will be caused to the applicants.

Reliefs Prayed for:-

In view of the facts and for the reasons stated above, the Miscellaneous Applicants most humbly prays that this Honourable Tribunal may be pleased to permit the applicants to join together in the original application.

We, (1) M. Harisuthan, General Secretary, Confederation of All India Central Govt, Stenographers Associations, S/o G. Madhavan Unnithan, aged 45 years, Steno Grade D, Stenographer O/o the Sr. Superintendent of Post, Kollam – 691001, residing at Nadukunnil, Kizhakkethil, Navaneetham, Kadika, Kaithaparambu P. O, Enathu, Pathanamthitta- 691526. (2) ) M. Harisuthan, S/o G. Madhavan Unnithan, aged 45 years, Steno Grade D, Stenographer O/o the Sr. Superintendent of Post, Kollam – 691001, residing at Nadukunnil, Kizhakkethil, Navaneetham, Kadika, Kaithaparambu P. O, Enathu, Pathanamthitta- 691526(3) P.S. Anirudhan, S/o P. Sreedharan, aged 51 years, Stenographer Grade ‘D’, O/o The Principal Accountant General (SGSA). Audit Bhavan, AG’s Office P. O, Statue, M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram- 695001, residing at Goutham Vihar, Punukkannur, Perumpuzha P. O, Kollam- 691504. (4) Liji S. R, D/o V. Raghunathan, aged 42 years, Stenographer Grad “D”/ GR.III, O/o The Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, ICE Bhavan, Press Club Road, Trivandrum- 695001, residing at Ketharam, TC 43/666(2), NKRA- 50, Neelattinkara, Kamaleswaram, Manacaud (PO), Trivandrum- 695009. (5) K.P. Sreenivasan, S/o Late V.K. Parameswaran, aged 49 years, Stenographer Grad “D”/ GR.III, O/o The Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals), Aayakar Bhavan, Mananchira, Kozhikode- 673001, residing at sreenidhi, Near Pisharikav Temple, Edakkad, PO West Hill, Kozhikode- 673005. (6) G. Ramadas, S/o N. Gopalachar, aged 56 years, Steno Grade D, Stenographer State, O/o The National Commission For SCs, Min. of Social Justice & Empowerment, Government of India TC 24/547(1) Opp. Thycaud HPO, Thycaud, Trivandrum- 695014, residing at Guru Priya, ENRA 20, TC 36/663, Enjackal, Vallakkadavu P. O, Trivandrum- 695008., (7) M.P.Sivakumar, S/o.C.P.Sethukumar, aged 46 years, Stenographer Grade-1, Regional Passport office, Panampillly Nagar, Cochin-36 residing at Nandanam, Nr. Yashoram Flats, Nirappathu, Chottanikkara.p.o, Eranakulam, do hereby verify that the contents of para above are true to be best of our knowledge, information and belief that I have not suppressed any material facts.

Dated this the 17^th day of july 2013

Place: Ernakulam

Date:17/07/2013 Applicants

2. M. Harisuthan

3. P.S. Anirudhan

4. Liji.S.R

5.K.P.Sreenivasan

		Respondents

Monday, 27 June 2016

New OA filed for Parity

copy of OA filed

Popular Posts

My Blog List